I call that the Swedish Argument, which relates to their SJW tendencies to enforce groupthink by casting aspersions on the motives of the person who dares to ask the unpopular question everyone is attempting to avoid. They skip the problem identification and SOW phase and go straight to the moral judgement in lieu of the analysis rather than after the analysis like we normally do.
Regardless, allow me to play the Devil's Advocate. Let's suppose I was trying to manipulate the group into changing their minds, for whatever my motivations might be. How would my devious motives affect the process by which participants develop their opinions on the matter? Do you think there's anyone here on this forum who simply takes my word for anything based solely on the fact that I said it? That my opinion somehow automatically carries more weight than anyone else's because of who/what I am? Do you think I have even attempted to tell anyone what their opinions should be on this matter? And if so, do you think anyone has actually changed their opinion on the matter primarily because it was me who said something, rather than on the basis of whatever reasoning that came up in this thread resonating with them?
How much/little do you respect the intellectual independence of our forum participants?
Putting aside the explanations on my motivations that I've already provided, what difference would it make if I was acting evilly? Would my dastardly motives somehow detract from the reasoning other people have contributed to this thread. Besides, how does anyone go about telling any appraiser what to think? 'Cause there are a lot of suits out there who would gladly pay you big bux if you could teach them how to more effectively manage and manipulate this herd of cats for their profit or gain.
